Reviewed by Michael J. R. Gaffikin University of Wollongong, Australia
It is difficult to know how to review a bibliography, but presumably it must be relevant (and useful) and complete.
In the Introduction, it is stated that
The objective of this bibliography is to provide the ac-counting history research community with a compre-hensive reference tool that will ultimately enhance their (sic) understanding of methodological issues and enable them to employ research methods appropriate to their subject of study [xiii].
It is tempting to ask whether this is an aim which is as noble and romantic as the setting for the origins of the project (“a curbside cafe on a balmy summer’s night in Pisa” [ix]). It is difficult to believe that merely presenting a list of titles will enhance the reader’s awareness of methodological issues. The editors obviously are aware of this and have designed a taxo-nomic grouping of the titles. It would seem that they have given this matter some considerable attention and there are thirteen such groups. Even so, they are not likely to please everyone and it would be easy to take issue with the rationale for the taxo-nomic divisions. In selecting their categories, the editors have indicated their vision of history; for example, why are there separate groups for historiography, philosophy of history and the historical rationale? Can evidence and sources be separated from interpretation and social dimensions? The editors, it would seem, are not convinced of either: some titles included under one heading in one section of the book are included in a different group in the another section.
The book is divided into four parts. The first introduces the taxonomic groups with summary reference lists. That is, the works, numbered for cross reference, are listed under a particu-lar group. The next section forms the main part of the book, with the full reference (and numbered) citation being given. The third section contains an annotated selected bibliography. The final, very brief section lists accounting history review and method papers. It is unfortunate that this last section is so brief and any charges of incompleteness may justifiably be laid here.
The broader question concerns the extent to which readers can be made aware of the methodological issues in undertaking historical research: the editors have certainly led the horses to the water, but will (or can) they drink? If they do not, the editors cannot be blamed for they have made every effort to present the material in a manner they believe will help the would-be accounting history researcher come to terms with most of the types of historical research that have become accepted over the years. This is especially true of the annotated bibliography section, and the editors are to be applauded for the admirable way they have tackled this immense task. The question, then, is do researchers learn from what others claim is the way to proceed with research, or is it better for them to see actual examples of (accounting) historical research and decide for themselves what is “good” and what is “bad” accounting history, what is an appropriate approach to their research and what not? That is, are there universal standards by which accounting history can be judged? If so, who will do the judging -accountants or historians?
This work was conceived and completed before the recent debates on the “new accounting history.” Thus, there is no section that deals specifically with this issue. It can be claimed (unfairly) that the work, therefore, is incomplete. Those with a predilection for the so-called new accounting history are bound to find many sections unsatisfactory and even unnecessary, for example, the references to quantitative methods of historical research (cliometrics). However, this section would seem to be one of the most complete: and there are a substantial number of references for anyone interested in learning how to undertake research that warrants sophisticated statistical support.
As stated earlier, it is difficult to review a bibliography and it is easy to find fault with various parts of it. In this work, the editors have set out to provide a list of references for those interested in knowing the sorts of standards by which works purporting to be historical are judged. If the readers of these historical works are also aware of these standards, accounting history can only become more rigorous and intellectually demanding. The editors wish to see works on accounting history become more than mere chronological descriptions, more than anecdotal curiosities. Thus, they have tried to present a tool for accounting history researchers, and they have completed a work for which they can be proud; one that contains a wealth of material and which should be in every accounting historian’s collection let alone every institutional library.
